Again, this is going on a Browning .270. I want the best low light performer I can get, one reason I've included the illuminated reticle scopes--figured it might help. Everyone keeps saying 3-9 is enough...but I'm unsure/don't know. I was leaning very heavily to the Monarch 4-16X50. I figured the 4x was low enough, but I had the extra magnification in case of a 500+ yard shot. I'm still undecided about BDC be it from nikon or whomever. I'm beginning to wonder if ya'll work for Zeiss as they are recommended so much..hehe. Please analyze my complied list and comment on each if you can (good better best). Feel free to add abetter bang for you buck scope that may not be listed. And also comment on how much or little a larger bell will help in low light situations. Worth the extra $$$?? Thanks for all your help so far----- I'm going !!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember the video from the other thread, I referred you to? Wayne Van Zwoll?...When you increase the magnification on your target, you then increase the scope wobble, which always lengthens the shot time! Everyone has wobble as the power goes up and it can`t be helped.

Unless you have mediocre eyes, are going to be shooting smaller varmits, or paper punching with that 270 from a rock steady position at the longer ranges, a scope from 12-16x max on the high end is imo, unneeded and ridiculous for hunting.

For hunting any deer sized game and larger, you are not going to be able to do anything more with a 10x to 16x, that you cannot do with a 9x, or even an 8x on the high end. Plus with a larger scope, you are adding additional ounces to your rifle`s weight to carry around, which will take a toll. Five, six, seven, ten ounces is not alot of weight, but it adds up very slowly and does catch up on the body over several days. It all depends on the degree of difficulty your hiking and terrain give you.

On deer sized game out to say 400-500 yards, I`ll take a 1.5x5, a 1.75x6, a 2.5x8 or a 3x9 before the 2.5x10`s, 4x12`s, the 4.5 x16`s, etc. And, I`ll still hit my target just as effectively with the same accuracy if not better.

Regardless of any shooting position for hunting, prone, on stix, elbow on the knee, whatever, a 400 to 500 yard shot set on 3x, 4x to 5x or on 6x, will be steadier than a shot set on 10x and above.

I leave all of mine on the lowest power when hunting, too. I do believe the 2.5-10 is the 4x erector equivalent of the 3-9. I would think sales figures would bear this out. The 3-9's are more cost effective right now, though.

I leave all of mine on the lowest power when hunting, too. I do believe the 2.5-10 is the 4x erector equivalent of the 3-9. I would think sales figures would bear this out. The 3-9's are more cost effective right now, though.

no doubt, i really dont understand what is gained with the 2.5x10 other than they cost more.

........You`re welcome!...........Here`s another little tid bit.........Imagine you`re on a stalk hunting whatever. The heart rate always increases and takes a few minutes to settle down. But you don`t have a few minutes to wait until your heart rate decreases and then take the shot. Try hitting your target accurately with a scope set on 10x or greater, let alone set on 8x or 9x with a faster heartbeat................

You really want to talk about some scope wobble here???

You gotta think of everything and consider everything beforehand. Some do, many don`t!Kinda like reading the stitches on a fast ball.............

I have no first hand experience with the Burris scopes you listed but my gunsmith, a former national runnerup long rifle champion, swears by Burris and Nikon. Doesn't knock the others just thinks they provide the best cost/value equation. I own the Bushnell 4200 in the 2.5x10x40 and have found it to be excellent. Clarity, light transmission, and image quality are superb and the point of impact is consistent throughout the magnification scale. Same is true of the Zeiss Scopes which I have used on several occasions. My personal favorites are the Nikon Monarchs. I think their optics and overall quality compete quite well with Zeiss and they are gentler on the wallet. You have constructed an excellent list and you really can't go wrong with any of those scopes. You might even look at the Bushnell Elite 3200. Excellent scope also!

Thanks Dshusker...I've still having a hard time making up my mind between Monarch/ Conquest and even a Elite 4200 2.5-10X50 as it has an illuminated dot reticle. I think that the illuminated dot would prove to be very usefull during dusk and dawn. Price poit is about the same between them, with Monarch being slightly less. Just don't know how the stack up. I'm guessing something like this:

Conquest = A+

Monarch = A

Elite 4200 = A-

But again I don't know. I need to get my hands on the Conquest to see how I feel about it. I'm already impressed with every Monarch I've held. I even looked at a elite 6500 and a Leupold VX-III and thought overall quality went to the Elite 6500. Don't get me wrong the optics did look nice on the Leupold, but fit and finish went to the Elite if you asked me. I'm probably gonna have to go out of town to get my hands on a Conquest as no one locally sells them. This is a big investment for me and I'm not purchasing anything until I can hold it. I sincerely appreciate eveyone's comments and advice. Keep 'em coming--Bboy623

The Conquest has just a little sharper and clearer glass than the 4200 Elite. Brightness wise they look equal to me. The real difference is the reticle. The Z-plex reticle in the Zeiss is etched and has heavier outer lines which makes it much easier to see in dim light and against brushy backgrounds. The plex in the 4200 is the standard plex and it is wire which tends to reflect light in certain lighting conditions and cause the reticle to turn silver or almost transparent in spots. I must admit that although I love the Conquest I dont think it makes much difference in normal hunting light and conditions. I think the new Nikon Monarchs are probably a tad better optically but I dont like the new power rings which are hard grasp and turn. Also, the large ocular housing may cause you to have to mount the scope high so it will clear your guns bolt when you cycle it unless you have a 60 degree bolt lift.

Dave44--I appreciate your comments. They are helpful as I am having a hard time finding my crosshairs in low light with my current scope. I don't have to worry about a bolt as the scope is going on a Browning BAR Safari II. I'm still in limbo----I'm sure ths Zeiss is the best (I'm still gonna put my hands on one before I make my decision), the 4200 Elite would have the easiest reticle to see (illuminated dot), and the Monarch's have the BDC I'd like to have for longer shots. Monarchs are a little less on price followed by the Zeiss w/ standard Z-plex reticle and the most expensive is the 4200 Elite w/ Illuminated reticle. Decisions, decision, decision. Again, I appreciate all the help here guys---Bboy623

Yea, its a hard decision though. I've gotta get my hands on a Conquest. I've also got to decide it the conquest is worth the extra $100 in price, and I've got to decide if I want an illiminated dot. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Although any of the 3 are going to be WORLDS better than what I currently have, I just don't want to "wish " I had bought the other one.---Bboy623

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum